tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 30, 2015 8:00am-10:01am EDT
the decision of these legitimate on stage to cancel expensive f-35s to plunge that money in extra money so in extra money the institute called the point at a better price a bunch of extra tens of billions of dollars into our navy so they can once again protect a two-thirds of our coastline that ends up in the arctic and one-third of our land mass in the arctic. candidate needs to reengage and we can fund it properly and that's what mr. harper hasn't done. >> we have record investment in shipbuilding right now, $35 billion. we're going down at all of our shipyards and we do that, mr. trudeau, without promising to run deficits and without hiking peoples taxes. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: there is no time left. there is no time left. [speaking french] >> translator: in the canadian north as we were able to see it recently with my friends and others, particular crisis as to
housing. isa houses with 18 people in two rooms. how can a child do his homework? this is a social and economic crisis that is destroying the next generation. this is a state obligation. it reflects our deep canadian values, and i will tackle the when i become the prime minister. it will be an opportunity to tackle the housing problem of our nation's. >> you are all aware and country thought a lot about this, that the biggest foreign policy judges aggressive and the unpredictable behavior of russia on the world stage. mr. trudeau, if he becomes prime minister how will you deal with vladimir putin? >> i think there's a question that we have to recognize that russia has become as you said a destabilizing force around the world. he's destabilizing eastern
europe with his unacceptable incursions into ukraine. he is pushing in blocking the achievement of cease-fires and stabilizing and stopping the bombings and war into syria and he's been a provocative agent in the arctic, which requires candidate to stand firm with our multilateral partners to push back with strong sanctions and as a strong part of nato against the. mr. harper has made a big deal out of talking loudly and strongly at mr. putin, but the reality is candidate has such a diminished voice on the world stage and mr. harper hasn't noticed that vladimir putin didn't listen to him when he told them to get out of ukraine, and that is unfortunately a reflection of where we are, where we don't have the impact that were used have been multilateral organizations to push back effectively against bullies like vladimir putin. >> it's faceting duties other parties talk about their fears
and their concerns about mr. putin. for years been accused of this government of being alarmist as you point out to thwart the degeneration of democracy and human rights in russia under his will and his increasingly aggressive and destabilize behavior internationally. i have met with mr. putin many times. everybody knows when he came to ukraine i've made it clear to mr. putin that candidate, this country is never going to tolerate or accept under any circumstances is occupation of ukraine territory. this was a position we took with the baltic states annexed by the soviet union in 1939. we held to this position with our allies for over 50 years and when the time came those countries became independent. isa to president poroshenko and others this country will continue to work with our allies to make sure we never any would recognize or accept russian occupation of any square inch of ukrainian territory. [applause] >> the ndp stands foursquare with the people of ukraine
against this russian invasion and we will stay there for the long-term, but it's interesting to hear mr. trudeau it was going to do with mr. putin. mr. trudeau, you can't even stand up to stephen harper on c-51. how are you going to stand up to putin? [laughter] mr. harper toxic good game with regard to getting with mr. putin, but the fact is that the are two people, yakunin and sechin, who are on the list of some of our closest allies, including the americans. mr. harper has refused to put them on the list of sanctions for candidate. candidate. you know why? because they got important dealings in canada. he's going to tell cisco localist anybody else. that's like saying that paul is on pugilist in which he which is but not that much of that. the rest of the people don't matter much but these two count. yakunin and sechin should be on canada's sanctions list. they are not because mr. harper
toxic good game about getting with putin, but two of his closest buddies are not being sanctioned because of their canadian connections. mr. harper is protecting them instead of sanctioning them. >> in fact has already admitted can has by far the largest sanction list of russian agents. the fact of the matter is if anybody is list of all of our allies, there of course was my candidate mr. mulcair claimed in a previous debate these two individuals were less about everybody. they are not listed by the european. we want to match our sanctions are effective, that they punish the russians more than they punish natives. these individuals are not listed by anyone and so -- >> they are listed by the americans. >> no one should doubt that i think the workers recognize the ukrainians themselves have recognized it. no country has responded more comprehensively to ukraine cities whether they be nonlethal military aid, training, humanitarian, financial assistance.
i've been to ukraine and met with president poroshenko. focaccia, no government in the world tested with the people of ukraine any more than does the government has. >> candidate will continue to stand with ukraine. when i chatted with president poroshenko in ottawa along with others, who is done an excellent job representing candidate in a nonpolitical way to the people of ukraine on this issue, we have seen tremendous, tremendous impact locally, but at the same time we are a country that just have a lot more influence and when canada said something we're listened to on the world stage. that has been diminished over the past years because of our withdrawal from international consensusbuilding, from working with multilateral partners as a positive, constructive after in our national interest. that's what we need to get back to so we can make a difference in holding our ground against putin and against always around the world.
>> thank you, gentlemen, for three very good rapid reaction discussions. let's return to our longer format exchanges. i want to begin by focusing on the public of candidate u.s. relations. mr. harper come you're unable to convince barack obama devolder keystone pipeline. what does this barely tell you about how we should manage the candid use relationship going forward? >> barack obama and i discussed this particular matter. he said to me there's nothing he's asking candidates to do. is good to make that decision based on his own assessment of american interest. this government has worked with two radically different administrations in the united states, and we work productively with both. right now if you look around the world of the things we've been working on with our partners in the united states, they include admission we talked about earlier against the so-called islamic state. we are working closely with the united states in our response to the crisis in ukraine and in risher star allies, our eastern european allies with nato. we worked together on the ebola
crisis. we work productively on joined regulations in that particular area. we have a project of unprecedented scope called yonder the border in which we're doing more to better integrate our security and tried and then board a process of becoming candid and the united states. we are working together sometimes not always agreeing on international trade negotiations. canada has a good relationship with the united states we work productively overall but at the same time the responsibility of the prime minister a candidate is a standard for canadian interests. >> mr. mulcair, please enter into a seven minute one on one with mr. harper on this topic. >> it's difficult to see a candidate's super interest were being struggling prime minister harper said to present obama that it was a complete no-brainer that the americans had, those were his exact words, that the americans had to
approve keystone xl. i know that keystone xl represents the export of 40,000 canadian jobs because mr. harper told the americans so because the same number that his finance minister use. i want to create those jobs and candy. he also from the americans that on keystone xl, another drug quote, i won't take no for an edge. guess what? the answer was no, and you are not able to do anything about it. [laughter] that every progressive in the united states is against keystone xl. their vote in favor of bill c-51 for progressives in candidate are against c-51. progressives understand it's time to start in with these issues usually about mr. harper and mr. trudeau have failed on keystone. >> i look at the facts of a case of xl pipeline. i'm simply citing the report done by the state department itself, which did an independent analysis of this projec to get h
jobs on both sides of the border. exports always do their artist in the production is in the individual recognize that the fact that it's good for our energy significant displacing foreign oil from countries that are security risk to north america. compared to the alternatives it is by far the best environmental solution in terms of moving our product to market. we have a strong case. i would also point out the reason i say this be a topic eventually is through the efforts of our embassy and this government we have created overwhelming public support independent for this position on both sides of the aisle in congress, including majorities in public opinion. it is my view that when something, the logic of something is overwhelming on an environmental, economic and energy security sense, that its adoption is inevitable. we will continue to make the case. we far more often than not a groove our american friends that when we do not come we have to
stand up for our interest that went to be very aggressive and vocal in pushing for canada's best interest. >> that's a wonderful idea but when you need the approval of your colleague for something are pushing for, the last thing you should be doing is think it is a complete no-brainer or you won't take no for an answer or your close on this whole thing, which was to tell the american administration of president obama that tv didn't get up with this administration, you would get with the next administration. there's an old saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. i think you're pouring vinegar by the gallon on the americans. you are right though that there are times when approach will be different from that of the americans and our job is to stand up for candidate. on issues like trade, climate, security, we are going to be integrated within. we doing to stand up for canadian values but what's the canadian valley and exported 40,000 canadian jobs to the u.s.?
it doesn't make any sense. >> it is amazing that the ndp actually believes that because the export our products and that helped create jobs elsewhere, that somehow bad for canada. the reason trade is so important is it creates economic opportunities on both sides of the border. i personally have friends who work in this industry, ordinary families who depend on the revenue from this industry. the industry and labor organizations in bot both the ud states in canada are supportive of this. labor unions in alberta say the ndp's on this is wrong. we cannot take in the modern global economy of the 21st century and ideological opposition to trade, being able to solar energy products, other parts around the world, is a good thing for canada. [applause] spin this is a very old hat approach from the conservatives. this is the same approach that failed in the past when we read and shift our national --
natural resources and send them to another country. the way to build for the future sustainable development of our resources include basic principles like polluter pay, which mr. harper has never applied can which includes putting the cost to the private, the climate, the greenhouse gases into your evaluation. we don't have a complete thorough credible and i'm an assessment process left in candidate. mr. harper has failed not only in the united states with the keystone but on his watch does not a single lumbar and 10 years of pipeline that's been building candida commenters reason for you. you can force the matter like it, and navigable waters protection act, species at risk, fisheries, but unless the public's onside it's not going to get bill. mr. harper has only himself to blame. we've got to start adding value to our resources in canada. >> we've gotten off topic on
like to bring in mr. trudeau for his thoughts on the canada just relationship with that's what i want us to focus on in this section spent our relationship with this is the most important foreign relationship that canada has. county prime minister can work with the president at the top of a list of what they prime minister needs to get right. they are our most valuable and trusted ally. they are our nearest neighbor and there are most important trading partner. how we engage to ensure that our jobs for canadians and economic growth is deeply wrapped up in how we are getting along. unfortunately mr. harper has narrowed the entire relationship with a tray to a single point around the keystone xl pipeline, and he went to new york and criticized and harangued the president. that is not the kind of relationship we need because not only does it not get the outcome was decided tha of getting an approval for the keystone xl
pipeline, it also interferes with our capacity to deal with other issues because it's all mr. harper and his ministers wanted to talk to the u.s. about your whether it's by an american, whether it's the oddest sector and the tpp negotiations going on, whether it's just jobs and growth for canadians, the fact is that canadians are sitting around worried about their jobs because we have a prime minister that doesn't like barack obama. we need to do much better than that and that personal relationship that mr. harper has had difficulty creating, not just with you as president, he doesn't share his ideology with premiers across the country and municipalities and a wide range of people. it's injuring these relationships that means jobs and growth. how we build our industry depends on the u.s. >> we have a great relationship with the us administration. i have a great relationship with president obama last night and
by the way, the americans have never said otherwise and neither have we. this is just and that you. what we been able to do to stand able to do to stand up for our interest on things like keystone while pursuing a broad range of initiatives with our american partners. i ask you to look at the alternative. imagine for stave off is that we would have a prime minister who would say to the united states, we are pulling out of the joint military mission against the islamic state. and why? because you, mr. obama, are continuing the policies of george w. bush. if you want to position the relationship go that would be the way to do it. we are acting with the americans around the world come and we share interests. [applause] spent a goes right to the heart of his policies regarding the islamic state and the international coalition. >> and our relation with the united states. >> exactly. >> it's interesting to the prime minister site our allies only when it suits his purpose, and is not based on a question of
value. indicates a fight the islamic state peoples they went to do the same as the americans, the british and the french because they're involved in this combat mission. when it comes to the deal that friends, the united states, great britain helped ensure that iran's nuclear ambitions are peeled back, mr. harper attacked that is being wrongheaded. is not a question of the fact that some of her allies agreed and some of us don't we just had the same thing, and when it's not in canada's interest, we will stand up for what candidate needs. i know canada can get back to being a voice for reason. i want to put counted on track to i want us to go to fight the flow of arms can fight the flow of money can fight the flow of foreign fighters but also know that an independent canadian foreign policy means that fundamental canadian values like fighting harder for peace than for war is what i will bring to my tenure as a prime minister. [applause] 's. we got a minute left i want to give hi the last word on this tc
because you came in first. mr. harper. >> we are congratulate our allies are working to get a deal with the iranian regime, but the proof of that will be in the application of that deal. we will believe iran's words and not its actions and i think our allies would take a very similar position. i fully admit that we don't always take the position of our allies but sometimes we take our positions based on what we believe our principles. let me give you a clear example. this government has been perhaps the most unequivocal in the world on the fact that when it comes to the middle east, we are not going to single out israel. it is the one western democratic ally. threats that are directed at the state. we are not going to single out the jewish state for attack and criticism. we recognize unequivocal he the right of israel to be a jewish state and to defend itself. [applause] >> last word to mr. trudeau. >> the issue of israel where we
most disagree as liberals with mr. harper is it is made support for israel a domestic political football with all three of us support israel and in the canadian government will. but on the question of the u.s. relationship, what we need to make sure is that we continue to engage as a robust number of the coalition fighting to defeat isis. there are many countries that don't have a direct combat role and canada has proven time and time again we can contribute. for our closest friend and allies in the u.s., to relaunch you in -- u.n. peacekeeping today and i have canada stepping up to say this is a canadian thing that will do well and support is yet another missed opportunity to have a positive relationship which means more jobs and more growth for canadians. >> thank you, gentlemen. we're going to move onto next topic. in a matter of weeks world leaders will gather in paris to negotiate a new global climate change agreement. mr. trudeau, liberal and
conservative governments alike have failed to meet their international commitments to reduce in house gas emissions. why should canadians believe that your government will be any different? [speaking french] >> translator: we recognize that the challenge that people are expecting us to face in the government is to understand that the environment and the economy go together. we can't separate them anymore. and, in fact, when we acted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we didn't act. this on our relationships with the united states, i relationships all over the world. so with the liberal party is the same, what i say now is let's put aside this political gain to get optimistic targets without having a plan to implement them. what we are choosing to do is to invest very much to reduce
emissions they were talking $20 billion over 10 years of investment on public transportation. we are talking $20 million over 10 years for sustainable infrastructure to reduce our impact on greenhouse gas emissions. and we are going to invest billions of dollars to develop green and clean energy, ever going to do that with the provinces. because of the round is up and dangers of mr. harper, the provinces were although. and some provinces and did carbon pricing and we must have federal government to support them and to prevent a united in pairs and a few months to show that canada has gone back to the way. thank you, mr. trudeau. thank you. mr. harper, please.
i can say for the first time in history that canada has set an economic growth, reducing at the same time greenhouse gas emissions. >> would also had a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. as pertains to the conference coming up in pairs, when we came to office a decade ago we took a position that was considered very radical, opposed by the other parties and many in the international committee. we said that an effective international protocol had to include targets for all major emitters. at times and the americans were not a part of the previous protocol are now committed to moving forward with it. i am very optimistic. we've established targets very similar to our major partners. we're working with the united states and others, particularly the united states, on regulatory systems on greenhouse gas emissions and i'm very optimistic we reached a historical court in pairs of this year. [speaking french] >> translator: you know, he
said that picky talk like that all the time as if canada was a leader in matters of environment. i think he is even starting to believe himself. the reality is that everyone knows that mr. harper has not understood a very basic element whereby the environment and the economy go together. if we are going to create a future job economic prosperity that we sustainable for our children and grandchildren we must do our homework and environment. we have to protect our soil, our water and, unfortunately, mr. harper, given that he did nothing about the environment in 10 years is harming our economy. we can't export our resources in the market. we are being treated as people
who harm because we are destroying negotiations in climate change. the reality is that everybody knows we are nowhere. canadians are frustrated the whole world is frustrated concerning canada. it is the kind of a prime minister that will stand up and understand that environment and economy go together. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: the first thing we have for the first time is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. you have to understand that the record mr. trudeau is talking about this from the previous government, that was the first one to increase greenhouse gas emission. >> greenhouse gas emissions have gone down under are governed. under the previous government to establish the toughest and in the world and in this to them the most of a single country.
they were 30% over the targets and when we got to office they didn't have a single plant to achieve anything. we have moved forward on regulatory matters and the transportation sector and electricity sector, and we're going to continue to move forward. we have a real plan. were taking actions. and by the way, we are doing that without imposing carbon taxes on the canadian population. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: what you also recognize is that they have already 86 of our economy that have announced by sun carpet. despite your inactivity in reducing the greenhouse effects, and to put targets that would not be met. that's one we will put money in. instead of anything else can you have in your inactivity, in action for different provinces take the leadership, british columbia has a carbon tax well
done. your province in alberta has done the same thing, there would ontario and québec will have reduce carbon. we have a leadership from provinces for the federal government to support event and we work to do together. but you prefer to sit down and not do anything, and we are losing our international reputation. in 2008 when barack obama came to ottawa the first time, he talked exactly about a continental approach. you have done nothing since that time and the united states are going a little because canada does not come is not part of the solution. we would not engage the united states, mexico to have approach that is on environment, energy, the growth.
this is what the leadership that you didn't have within the last 10 years. we cannot take lessons from the liberal party of canada that has the worst targets. >> we have embarked on a system. what we're doing in our government is we are not come we are making sure we know exactly where we're going to reduce emissions in a way that preserves jobs and doesn't impose costs on consumers. we are proceeding with a sector by sector writer to approach. in the transportation and other sectors, methane and oil and gas we're proceeding in collaboration with the united states. in the electricity sector we proceed in collaboration not whawith the united states but wh our provinces on a position that is frankly going farther and faster than the united states. we will be the first country in the world to effectively shut down traditional coal-fired electricity.
the biggest single source of emissions on the planet orbiting eliminate it in canada. we're going to claims energy sector and were doing that without imposing taxes on canadian consumers spent you do see i stand here in toronto and tried to tell people ontario that is him a supported and aided the closing of the coal-fired plants here in ontario. [applause] you and your government ought to the nail against the ontario government as it was demonstrating that it could reduce its emissions by and if it can do agree of any jurisdiction in the country by making a simple policy decision that you are no part of even blocking and ridiculing from your gain in ottawa spent mr. trudeau, actually that's just factually untrue. >> mr. harper, these people know better than what you're trying to say. [applause] stick we put in place at the national level, if the binding system of regulation in collaboration not just with the province of ontario and nova
scotia, alberta, saskatchewan, all of the province's biggest coal-fired electricity. we are a limited coal-fired electricity. you talk about the united states. emissions from the coal-fired electricity sector operative in emissions from the entire canadian economy. we are leading the world on this sector. [speaking french] >> translator: thank you mr. harper. please, mr. mulcair. please get involved in the conversation. [speaking french] >> translator: in fact you know that mr. harper is totally right when he says that the liberals use their signature as our deep and he's right when he said that the liberal government had the worst record. except for kazakhstan prevent unwanted continue not to do anything. >> i have a track record that you can easily refer to, we were able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and québec. we had a clip in -- plan to do
in the kind of things that canada needs right now, because, yes, we have chosen to run three modest deficits to balance the budget by 2019, because the time to invest is now. time to take action on climate change is now. these are the choices that we have made that you quite frankly can not make. even as you approached, as you announced with tremendous strength and pomp we have we have your friend and ally, the ndp premiere of alberta, who said, you know what? she is not so crazy about your approach on climate change reduction. you can't even get an ndp premiere to endorse your environmental plan you know you're in real trouble, mr. mulcair. >> mr. trudeau, alberta is one mind on obligation of results this is about sustainable
development. when you say your only way of governing would be to dump massive economic debt on future generations you're right, we strongly disagree. mr. harper left a strong ecological debt on the future generation. last time liberals were in power, 24% of cut social and. ndp has better track record than any party in party with balanced budget. when we took over saskatchewan, you're right, there was one exception turned out bob ray was a liberal. [applause] tommy douglas took over saskatchewan that the liberals ran into bankruptcy. 11 consecutive balanced budgets in a row. brought in free public health care. when we bring in quality child care it won't be back on future generations, on the basis after
balanced budget. >> this is foreign policy debate. we had an economic debate week before last. recenter the discussion in our remaining moments. mr. harper, back to you on climb pat change and -- >> parties will never actually lay out precisely where it is they intend to reduce emissions. sector by sector you know what you're going to do, to be able to make sure you minimize cost on jobs in canadian economy. we're investing a billion dollars a year, 10 years on green energy and energy efficiency. only real policies ever proposed by either of these parties are effectively carbon taxes where we hit consumers. frankly carbon taxes are not about reduces emissions. they're about raising revenue for the government. mr. trudeau is right, mr. mulcair's plan has been rejected by ndp government. >> completely false. >> gentlemen, we wrap up that topic, we'll move on to the final long form discussion. mr. mulcair, want to start with you. your party is opposed publicly
making concessions on supply management and aspects of auto manufacturing, in the context of the current trans-pacific partnership negotiations. does this mean under ndp-led government, canada would be locked out of some of the world's fastest growing markets. >> translator: thank you very much. well this week i had the opportunity to talk with the president of farmers and we must commit ourselves to defend our system which is a very important system that makes us very bright. we have no excuses to explain our system of supply and in quebec and in ontario. people are very worried because they know that three weeks prior
to the election, everything is allowed. >> mr. harper went public and he said if you're in the auto sector you should be worried about what he is negotiating in the trans-pacific partnership. on mr. harper's watch we lost 400,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs. there are 80,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs in the auto sector. what is on the table? when president obama wanted to discuss this week, this is how good the relationship is, he phoned the president of mexico. we were frozen out. i'm quite concerned what is being left on the table by conservatives. our dairy farmers have every right to be concerned. i think supply management is on the table. mr. harper doesn't keep his word on these things. ask anybody in newfoundland, labrador, got approval of european trade deal, promise to give them money in terms of what they were giving up processing fish, and you know what? he broke his promise. >> translator: mr. trudeau, what is your opinion about the matter? well it is certain that we could
have signed many agreements internationally without endangering our farming system but the reality is that the gentleman is showing true lack of transparency. he doesn't want to talk about what he is doing. like mr. mulcair is you know lining, he is not fulfilling his promises in many issues as to promises concerning international trade. we absolutely must have free-trade agreements. we know it is good for jobs and we need those investments. that's a reality. and we can not pretend either that the world is free trade world as to agriculture. we have a system that works. we signed very important agreements without putting ourselves in danger. but we need to attract foreign investment. we need to create jobs here in canada. you know that, the sectors, the
manufacturing sectors and exporting sectors pay higher salaries to canadians from the middle class. and international trade is essential for canada. mr. harper does like to talk about his support and the agreements he signed but our exports had the worst growth rate under his government that we have had since the second world war. he hasn't performed the investments. i want to say when we see the record of liberals in that matter, remember he promised in his redbook to finish with the gnp. you remember his redbook? he had torn the free-trade agreement of north america and of course he didn't do anything about it. that is why we must be very careful before signing because
once that is signed, it is very difficult to touch. there are aspects to the state as protecting health. chapter 11 is a true challenge and mr. trudeau said that he agreed with europe, which is the matter. it went to the house of commons, mr. harper has an agreement with europe and there are aspects like investments, for example, concern us and concern other countries in europe. so even if he announced 12 times that he is going to make an treatment, there isn't one yet. we can't pretend that we are growing while we are slowing down. i will never accept, as the crucial environment or health or other matters to be non-defined.
to have international experts decide what i have the right to decide for the public. that's a basic canadian value. to keep the authority of the state. the state once owned decisions in the interest of the public. you know mr. mulcair is trying to change the ndp to improve his image. the reality there are enormous difficulties still to understand that we need free-trade agreements to create a better future our jobs and our economy. the ndp does not support any free-trade agreement that might have been signed in the last year. no, there is one. the one with jordan. that is the only one he accepted. the reality is that this is a party that never understood what extent it is important to attract invests to canada.
to have markets for exports to be involved and engaged with he going economies in asia. we must be involved. yes, the liberal party, the reeds very seriously in international agreements. we believe it is essential for economic growth to give jobs to canadians. that is why we agree with the canada europe agreement. mr. harper has not performed yet. we are not yet anywhere with china and australia just signed. we're at the beginning with india, in spite of the approach mr. harper tried to do recently with the prime minister and with the united states. we are not yet with international free trade but, yes, there is an issue there whereby mr. mulcair was to enter into an exchange with the united states. that this bulk water exports. >> propose we export bulk water
to the united states. you gave us speech on it. you compared it to forestry. mr. mulcair, you are willing to sell our water to the united states. >> please jump in, mr. mulcair. accusation has been made. we like you to respond. >> first of all, with regard to trade deals, there was a trade deal with korea backed by the ndp. so mr. trudeau is inventing facts once again. when i was minister we had lots of debates. important thing to look at what we decided. i decided to shut the door, because bulk water exports would be terrible idea under north american free-trade agreement and we made sure we shut the door and locked it tight. there was a good public debate. mr. trudeau doesn't have debate. he is used to having people write his lines for him. with regard to korea, we had representation, it is representation of the what the ndp knows how to do. we are looking for an even playing field. we are looking for trade
agreements. with countries that share our values. whether it is protection of the environment or protection of workers rights. this is an even playing field. this can be about reciprocity. what we won't do is what mr. harper has done, sign deals with countries like honduras, right after a coup, mr. harper ran to try to make a deal with honduras. that country doesn't respect workers rights and. we shouldn't put them on even playing deal. same thing with our trade deal with colombia. there are times you have to stand up to say, canadians expect their government to reflect their values when they put their name on a trade agreement. mr. harper consistently failed to show any respect for fundamental canadian values. >> mr. mulcair and then mr. harper. >>. >> in 20th century, good trade jobs are -- we've been able to achieve deals in this continent with europe and now with the republic of korea.
we're working in asia-pacific region. every time we have done so making sure we protect our vital interests. advance interests of our automobile sector. protect interest of supply management. advance interests of canadian agriculture. look there is always a reason to walk away from the table. there is always reason to engage the agreements. these parties opposed original u.s. canada agreement. some opposed nafta and europe. in reality we dot agreements in interest of the canadian economy. we'll only sign a deal if it is in interest of canadian economist. we'll sit at table and make sure we defend canadian interest. >> mr. harper talked about how many deals he signed over the past years. what is great job he has done reaching around the world. canada has, sorry, this prime minister worst rate of export growth of any prime minister since world war ii.
if this is your best efforts, mr. harper, we have to worry what will happen if you get reelected. fact of the matter canada needs to engage postively on the world stage. our diplomacy, our cultural exchanges, our opening r engagement in humanitarian efforts, climate change responsibilities feed into how we're able to engage in the kind of trade deals that will bring good jobs to canadians. create a brighter future for people. we know export intensive industry pay 50% industries than non-exporting intensive industries. >> mr. harper to reply. then mr. mulcair. >> look, we're in a decade of global economic instability. we increased our exports 50%. we're not living in different era. we're living in era where it is difficult. canada is the best among the g7. we need to do that taking forward-looking action. historic steps to conclude trade deals in this continent and
conclude trade deals in europe and work to get trade deals in the euro pacific region. you don't get those deals coming up with a million reasons why you're against them before you even get to the table and why you should walk away once you're there. we're there. we're successful. we had successful record making sure we defend the broad interests of the can canadian economy. open up our markets. that is what we'll continue to do. >> mr. harper. >> translator: ask you a question. the president of the union of agriculture. if you will defend wholly the system of management, supply management and all the negotiations we have always defended the supply management. and, the negotiation we defend the agriculture, when they are outside of the system. we defend the interests of all
the sectors and and the engagement to be could conclude the agreement that is to the interests of the of canadians. >> how we build a brighter future for us all. liberal party put forward propositions, you heard of them, deficits to invest in our communities and infrastructure but we also understand trade and creating good jobs is at the heart of what every canadian prime minister needs to do. we are too big of a country with too few people to be able to do it all on our own. we need trade with the u.s., with countries around the world, to actually grow our economy to create good jobs for canadians. the fact that mr. harper hasn't been able to get it done on the big file and mr. mulcair continues to obstruct and denied the importance of trade means that the choice is clear in this election to pick the liberal party of canada. >> mr. trudeau -- country has
been created by conservative governments. what we always get from liberal party platitudes on trade. you don't have vision and determination to sit at table to make the tough decisions to get the deal. that's what we're doing. [applause] >> finally, by mr. mulcair. >> thank you. the question to ask is who do you want representing canada at the climate change conference in paris in december. who do you want sitting across from angela merkel as we try to get a deal that suits all of our purposes? who represents canadian values on all issues we're discussing tonight? for 150 years we've been told we have no choice alternate between the sponsorship scandal in the liberals and senate scandal in the conservatives. this time around real choice of ndp government, progressive forward-looking choice for canada and canadian values. >> translator: thank you, mr. mulcair. ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived to the end of our debate
[applause] >> all of us here hope this debate helped inform the vote that you, you the viewing audience, everyone here in this auditorium will cast in three weeks time. let's be sure all of us, regardless of our views, our party to head to the polls to vote. for those of you watching online right now, our postdebate panel begins, co-hosted by facebook canada and the globe and mail.
lady mamie eisenhower knew how to manage a large staff and demanded nothing short of excellence in the white house. her favorite color pink was reflected had her wardrobe and coordinated in accessories. she was voted one of the nation's best dressed for her clothing and hats. mamie eisenhower, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span's original series, first ladies, personal and image. examining the private lives of women that filled the position of the first lady and influence on presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama. sunday 8:00 p.m. eastern. american history tv on c-span3. >> presidential candidate jeb bush unveiled his energy plan which calls for for lift restrictions on producing and exporting oil and natural gas, improving the keystone x of the l pipeline and requiring the federal government to refer to states and private governments on energy production rules.
>> thank you all for taking the time to join us today to hear from governor jeb bush. it's great to have jeb in pennsylvania. [cheers and applause] eight years ago, rice energy was started by three properties in an apartment in pittsburgh. with hard work and talented team, rice energy has become a top 25 producer of natural gas in the united states today. while most people would assume rice energy's success is because of the rice brothers, the truth is, our role as leaders of this company isn't to tell our 370 hard-working employees how to do their jobs. our job as leaders is to giveis our employees the tools and resources they need to do the best job they can and realizee
their full potential. job this requires trust, and this is the trust that we have the right people to do their best and to do what's right. rice energy is succeeding because of its people. and we need a leader in washington that sees ourtha nation's opportunity, recognizes our people's potential and shepherd our nation's return to greatness. this presidency isn't about choosing the smartest, the richest or the most charismatic candidate. for me this presidency is about choosing the president who believes in the people -- you're all three of those. [laughter] [applause] this presidency is about choosing candidate who believes in the people of this nation. that we the people have the potential and work ethic to make our country great..
since launching his candidacy jeb laid out a vision to reform washington,ca d.c., to grow our economy so everyone has of the opportunity to realize their potential and achieve their dreams. and to restore america's leadership in the world.ore jeb's eight years as governor of florida were marked by record tax cuts, reductions ind government spending, strong jobs growth and more government the reform, including an overhaul of florida's failing educational system. jeb believed in the people of florida. he gave emthis tools and resources they needed to succeec and as a result, florida succeeded. it prospered and i'm confident the same can be done with our country. as -- at jeb's presidentiala campaign announcement earlier this year he closed his speech saying i will run with heart and i will run to win. rice energy and all the hard-working energy workers here in appalachia are very excited to hear about jeb's plan for our
future, including all important topic of american energy. so with that, please join me in welcoming jeb bush. [cheers and applause] >> that's very kind. thank you all. thank you, daniel.ob ryan who joined the team. this is a great american success story. i'm honored they're hosting us here as we unveil our energy initiative. our energy policy. it is a great american tradition for families to stay together to build businesses. it is quite common in the oil sectors this takes place. this is an extraordinary, extraordinary company.inar
i'm honored to hire.me i want to mention toby a littleh bit. because he is second brother. i always admire the second brothers in families. i don't know about you.. i think the guy's going places. [applause] this is a great business that has taken an idea and invested in the idea, took risks, a great american concept and applied technology in a way that built a public business now that has created jobs, not just at this business, more than 300 jobs but all sorts of other employers. count on rice energy as their source for their livelihood. va energy sector in our country is more value added than any that exists before. everybody marvels at siliconcon
valley.and people reinventing the wheel and creating prosperity and create be opportunities for people on the west coast but the oil and gas sector has been the driver for economic growth. even when you have a presidentri and president and administration that tried to put it down. 40% of all the economic activitt since 2008 have happened because of the energy sector in this be country.in 40%. if you look at how the wages go and the jobs created it is quita similar number. the energy business in country creates two times median wage i community they serve. you see benefits of it. you see benefits of freeise enterprise system at work. if you think about concept of hydraulic fracking it has been around a long time, right. it took a barnett shale play in
fort worth, greek immigrant, private business through trialuh and error made it possible for to realize the potential. next generation of entrepreneure exploited this concept to create possibility of us being energy secure with north american resources, within five years. it is aspiration that is real.it i just appreciate the entrepreneurship that makes it reality. not just celebrateing american entrepreneurship why is that is important. energy security with north american resources means we have the lowest cost source of energy to outcompete anybody i'm sick and tired of people thinkinge that the chinese eat our hundred. we need to tear down the barriers to compete with thee chinese and anybody else and i know america can do it. [applause] i laid out a plan that lifts our spirits up a little bit.u
the new normal in america today is 2% growth. 2% growth means six million more people are living poverty than the day barack obama got elected president. 2% growth means disposable income in this country is downi close to $2,000 than the days barack obama got elected president. 2% growth the new normal thet. left says you have to get used to, means six 1/2 million people are working part time. 2% growth means workforcens participation rates are lower today than they were in 1977. why not aspire to 4% growth? 4% growth means more money is in people's pockets. people will be lifted out ofp poverty. people get a job to take a risk and maybe start their ownnd business or be able to grow their income because we're g investing in the future of thisi country.b 4% growth means that we're strong and we're optimistic and we're hopeful and we're aspirational again. 4% growth means we lead the world which is exactly what the
united states should do.t so how do you create 4% growth and rising income that goes along with it? we need to reform the tax code. i unveiled a strategy to dounv that. corporate tax rate ofeg 20%, not 35%. fully expensing capital investment you all make so that you invest more and more, just as we need to do in this country. we should lead the world in creating a 21st centuryc manufacturing sector with great workers, low energy cost and energy sources as far as the eyr can see of the we can recreate industrial might. if we did we would be stronger rand our communities would be renewing itself.woul we need to fix the regulatory i system in this country. mind-numbing rules each and every day from washington, d.c. thousands and thousands of new rules. cost of regulation is $1.9 trillion on our economy. that is equal to $15,000 for
american families. that means we're not creating kind of jobs we have. whether obama care that creates higher health care costs or the epa deciding they will get involved in things they never imagined before. in fact just for you in pennsylvania i read something yesterday or day before yesterday, 9% of all entire land mass of pennsylvania will now have to comply with the waters of the united states rule that epa has where the epa now is going to have to give permits out for just about everything, whether it is building a shopping center, having retaining pond, navigable waters is now the broadest definition possible. it is stoking repressing ability for us to grow.abil energy sector is perhaps thee greatest threat. whether it is methane gas regulations from washington instead of using common sense regulations that have worked at the state level or the federalmn lands that exist in waters where regulation makes it harder to lease on federal lan to be able to grow the economy.fede
regulations need to be fixed that gets us close to 4% growth scenario. we need toe embrace the energy revolution as well. we have it in our midst. if we did those three things -- [applause] here is what i believe. i think we need to lift the ban on crude oil exports. it was designed in 1973 during a time when we had an oil embargon it might have made sense then. i'm not sure it did. it makes no sense now. we had four million barrels a day of additional production. we should sell that to the world for national security purposes, for lower prices for us and for greater high-wage jobs thisi country. lift that ban. makes no sense. lift the ban as it relates to lng exports.n if it is not a free trading country almost takes an act of god to get permit. there is gas underneath where w are ready to be exported t could
be used as national security deal to deal with putin. it creates high wage jobs andrgy lowers energy costs if we continue to invest in our future. first step is to lessen the barriers so we can produce more secondly, we need to create infrastructure to get this gasee to market.et whether in new england where you have sub sy dieded fuel oil,e heavy carbon intensive fuel oilv at higher price, if you allowed the pipe, infrastructure to get to market you would be able to have hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of gas be provided to people that wouldn't need to bep subsidized at lower price. less carbon intensive anday creating jobs right here. or infrastructure necessary to get to the industrial heart line, refining capacity in theli gulf coast. let's unleash the americanast. experience on permit something that we can expedite permittingn to be able to create far greater demand. which do not have the a supplymd
problem in our energy sector, do we? we have a demand problem because of the lax of infrastructure. [applause] as president i would expedite permitting to make that happen. as president i would approve thd xl pipeline, for crying out loud. that is the lowest hanging fruit i could ever imagine. [applause] let me get this straight. the xl pipeline is bad because, i'm kind of thinking why. creates jobs in america. it connects us to north americat to create a north american energyo strategy. that doesn't seem like a bad idea. it is safer to come by pipeline rather than by train, right? it creates lower energy prices that allows the united states to be the pricer of crude oil, that, thosehave exports go either east or west, rather thana coming south. itgo creates jobs here and creao income here. seems like it's a pretty goodats
idea.inco but the radicalr environmentalists in this country not allowing hillary clinton and barack obama to dory what they know is the rightb thing to do. i will not be pressured. i will support the xl pipeline. it will make sense for our country and it will create jobs here. [applause] leases on federal land and federal waters has declined by about 40%. even though there is great potential.40 we know it to be true.'s these revenues go to lower the budget deficit which is still at problem in washington d.c. i will make sure the bureau of land management and other agencies stopping progress ona leasing land will no that the next president wants them to do it in the right way. you can always find the proper balance between thelanc environmental good, environmental necessities ando economic progress and that should be the objective of the next administration, to allow ut to invest in our own dreams and also protect the natural environment. i did it as governor of the state of florida.
we can balance economic o interests and environmental progress. but don'tta stifle it because you're upset that american entrepreneurial i am, americanwn exceptionalism and you want to pick winners and losers out of washington, d.c., and impose will on the rest of theof country. that is now how america works. america works far better from the bottom up rather than the top down.do let's unleash theu entrepreneurial spirit and use federal lands. i promise you i will do that as well. [applause] the final suggestion i have is there should be greaterhe deference to the states.re s in this world where everything is, all the smart people apparently in the age of obama reside in washington, d.c. rest of us are just kind in awe ofo their raw intelligence and theia great capabilities to tell us how we're supposed to live oura lives.
we need to turn that upside down. in the states should have greater deference. in virginia want to allow, offl federal waters off their coast to be able to develop that because they believe that will help them grow their economy,her there should be some deference and recognition, girlians know what is -- -- virginians know what is going on. if alaska wants to do the samee thing, there should be deference rather than imposing will from washington, d.c.p when i amed p elected president the political hacks and academics take the back seat. people making these decisions might have practical experience in the real world. i apologize but i think is the a best thing to do. [applause] so here's my aspiration. i believe we can create a million, 21st century manufacturing jobs with the lowest, most abundant source of energy in the world. i believelo we can continue tor.
give the middle class of this country the greatest break they have had in the last six years which are lower gasoline pricest and lower power generation, utility prices because that is the only good deal they have had in the last six 1/2 years. we can continue to do that in a way that liberates the oil ande gas producers to be able to provide continued source of a abundant low-cost energy. i believe we can outcompete any country in the world including china. i reject the notion we're in decline as a nation but we have to fix these big complex things and if we do our economy will grow at 4%. we'll do it in a way that will create security for the country the one beautiful thing about a proper energy strategy is that it also a defense of the homeland. there are great threats in this world right now. whether it is russia, trying to dominate europe by using its energy to blackmail the baltics or the eastern european or even western european countries orstr
the sea lanes being challengedn in southeast, south china seas. the united states needs to be strong. and the strong america means wet have to grow our economy at a far faster rate and be energy and food secure. if we have, food security and energy security, no one will be able to outcompete the greatest country on the face of theo earth. thank you all for coming. [applause] >> jeb. me, toby, derek and ryan, we sat down, they said you can ask him a couple questions. so me, toby, derek have our own questions. i will ask them for all four of us. >> is that is the question. >> first question, self years ago we were in small business,
starting in pittsburgh. as we look at small businesses today, how do your policies help grow small businesses in america? >> small businesses actually in america for the first time in recorded history may have happened in the 17th century or 16th century, back up where you guys came from in new england. might have been the time where businesses, more businesses closing than opening. that is what it is in america today. it is tragic. w i mean this country led the world because we're dynamic and, the world doesn't work like in planned way in america. don't plan it all out real welln we respond to opportunity. that is how we succeed. we're 10 steps forward, fivew steps back, three steps forward, five steps back, 10 stepso forward country. we're not, we're not marching to be told what to do to fill out the right form, get in line. do all this stuff. we're totally horrible at that. and the small business sector ie the one that has been hurt bye all of these rules on top ofh every aspect of human endeavor.
it starts in washington but frankly some states also imposed major rules on top of everything. to start a business inon california you have to pay 800 bucks to start with. again and again every year. if you got a business with 10,000d bucks and you're pursuig your dream, yours probably was a little more when you started but a lot of businesses start with borrowed money from crazy uncle harry and, he gives you 10 grand you're out just killing it trying to do your best. if you have to pay $800 for an occupational license fee or tax, then pay another tax, pay excuse me for living tax. then you have to go to washington and you have higher health carep costs because of obamacare around the system we have, you add it all up, smally businesses don't have lobbyistso do they? they don't have accountants. they don't have compliance officers. you guys are learning about this as public company. it makes it harder. scale is not the definition of a
successful business and it shouldn't be but in fact in america it is becoming more and morees that way. incumbents don't mind whenmor dodd-frank imposes all sorts of rules on every borrower. they don't care because the bigg banks can basically share those costs over gigantic asset base. only two banks formed in last six years in america, two news banks. there is a reason for that. decomplicateing life, shifting regulation away from washington to the state level, recognizing that thereon should be an econod benefit for every rule that is imposed, i believe we ought toth have a regulatory budget in washington.to h so if you create -- this is what the u.k. has done. every dollar of additional costs in my mind, there ought to be a dollar of someplace where there are savings. no increase in regulation and we ought to have sunset review of all rules, spring housecleaningo to shed some rules that might
have made sense 30, 40 years ago. putting men and women in positions of responsibility thad actually understand the business, industry they're regulating and don't have political agenda. that want to have balanced view between protect the water or the air or the workforce environmen and the economic impacts that businesses bring. bringing common sense to washington in this regard would be helpful. i'm 62 years old. i look a lot younger, right?k a told me i was charismatic or good-looking or something. so here's the deal. i o was governor eight years whe we did all this stuff. we led the nation in small business growth for eight years. we created 1.3 million net newm jobs during those eight years, even though the government shrunk by 13,000. we cut taxes by 19 billion. we created a "field of dreams"lo in and people pursued theirams dreams in florida more than other places because of it. i've been in the private sector
for 33 years and the governmente for nine. the practical private sector experience is what i want to bring to washington, d.c.an starting a business with three people and growing it to theits largest full service real estate company in south florida to 280 people before they kicked me out the door. that experience is more relevant in many way what is is wrong in washington. they only hang out with the big dogs. they hang out with the big companies. they hang out and interact with their lobbyists and lawyers and accountants. small businesses don't have access to that and they're beins hurt by all of this. that's all i got. >> good answer. [applause] this question from derek the ever pessimist in rice family. how exporting more american energy good for companies like rice energy but how does it affect america's role in thec world? >> well actually it is good for
consumers. it may sound counter intut tiff, you export crude. some people say we should hoard it. and the net result of that is refiners actually get higher margins and gasoline prices are higher. exporting crude actually lowers costs at home. may seem counter intuitive but if you talk to the experts they will tell you unanimously that is the case. it is good for consumers. it is good for people working because every time you create ai new market for your product, whether it is gas or liquids or oil, you're creating an opportunity to grow your business, right? and invest in your own business that creates economic opportunity for the employees of rice energy and for all of the suppliers of rice energy. and this community, and for the landowners that are leasing you properties and they're buying pickup trucks, thanks to those royalty checks, aren't they?
they are being able to provide for their child's education. they're saving their money so their kid can go to them university of their choice. they're doing all sorts of things they want to do, rather. than being told what they should do. there is vitality to this that helps not just the business but entire community they'rea serving. frankly it is also a national security issue.oin it will get cold here pretty soon. not here but in estonia and in poland and in germany and in romania. if you look at, look at the heating necessities of europe, gets really cold there. where do they get their gas? by and large they get it fromere the russians. they are basically held hostage and be blackmailed. gazprom can raise prices whenever they want an they have done it. ask ukraine people what it isa like to live through the wintere with russia as your sole-source
of supply.why why not use it as national security tool to export lng to be an alternative to russianve natural gas?ural it's cheaper. it's cleaner if you're interested in the environment.i our natural gas is significantly less carbon intensive than the russian natural gas. we're much more committed to protecting the environment. so we're exporting a cleaner energy source. more importantly it is in our natural security interest to n show resolve against russia.o to show support for nato allies. if we need them they will not bt there if we're not on their side. we should have a north-south corridor poland down to eastern europe, using american natural source of our foreign policy tools. the same applies as it relates to asia. no reason why this can't bet effective tool for us to re-engage in the world.u this is wonderful intersectionul of high-wage, high-growth, high job growth economies where wec
benefit because we're energy secure. where wee lower our energy prics and we use it as tool for our national security around the world. i can't think of a better deal than what we're going through right now. we're just not exploiting it to the fullest extent possible.f [applause] look at this guy right hire. this is a heck of a picture right there. taking pictures of me? [laughter] >> okay. the third question is coming from the more sensitive brother, the youngest one, ryan. >> ryan. he is an aggie. how can he be sensitive? >> ryan's question is, how can your reform plan -- >> hey, ryan. my dad's an aggie. so i'm an aggie. he is an aggie. i went to university of texas. frankly in our family, our dad's
library is at texas a&m university, i'm an aggie too. that is why i gave him a warm wh embrace. >> ryan's question, how would the reform plan for federal government regulations affect energy workers and their families here in pennsylvania? >> every dollar of reduction of a rule that creates economicc benefit and achieves the social good, i'm not suggesting unregulating the world. what i'm suggesting is common sense, 21st century rules, rather than the complex 20th century rules, allow progress to go forward. which means more money in your pocket, plain and simple. that's it.i every dollar we extract of costs making, creating possibilities, for workers and businesses creates money in people's pockets. we haven't had that. we have had, six million more people in poverty. we have declining income for great middle of this company.
disposable median income is down $2,000 since the day barack obama got elected president. because of massive uncertainty and confusing rules and cost of rules that businesses have to share with their workers. that's it. it is plain and simple. same with health care. every time you create a well-intended idea of obamacare as is well-intended i'm sure but simple fact it imposes costs on businesses that then force business to make employees share more in health care costs. you see it happening with high every deductibles and higher co-pays and less take-home pay. your income is going down. you protect what its you're trying to protect but at the lowest possible cost so people have money in their pockets. let meck give you an example because i know there's -- your success makes environmentalist miserable. not the common sense
environmentalists, but thee it radical ones. a growing economy allow us to have money to protect wild america. when our economy in florida grew 4.4% a year, we generated revenue that allowed us to havet largest land purchasing programs in the country to protect pristine florida. we began the process of seriously trying to restore the everglades, an incredible treasure for our country. we focused on cleaning upn waterbodies, not just thee everglades but others. if we were growing at tepid rate of economy today, we wouldn'tr have resorts to protect thehe r natural environment. there has to be a win-win. n that is what we need to get to is common sense regulation. not this kind of finger lickingp making them feel like they ared doing something bad. you created 300 plus jobs above the median income of al of community. all suppliers dependent upon
your business now love you too. you're creating wealth and prosperity for yourselves but for hundreds, if not thousands of otheru people as well.h that is the american way.a we should be celebrating. where is the marching band, for crying out loud. this is what we should be doing. [applause] they all have stock? >> employees? >> yes. >> i hope your stock price goes up too. >> thank you. >> that is american capitalism,' ryan, at its best. not owned by one or two people. shared by everybody.eryb everybody's interest aligned right way. praise jesus. i get fired up when i see examples like this.h this separates us from the rest of the world. one other point how we should bb proud of this country, there are places where shale exists in other parts of the world, right? it is all over. argentina has a massives potential shale play. the russians have it.i the polls and germans in the
u.k. the brits have shale plays. where else other than the united states hasha it worked? nowhere. it is only in america. why is that? a, we risk more. we take risks. we have a culture of risk-taking. not crazy risks but risks thatf allow you to move forward. we have private property rights embedded who we are. it is in our dna we were watching the men and women thato do the leasing for the business. that is a robust market onlyth exists in america. only in america do private land owners own subsurface right to the extent they do in this country. that create as dynamic energy sector because as prices go down, leases go, prices go down and you create opportunities that you guys take advantage oft it is uniquely american.e it is uniquely american to have trial and error. to try something and doesn't work and adjust to make it more
dynamic. the cost of your production dropped by what, last three ordn four years? 50%. where else in the world do you get this kind of dynamic response?rld we should stop trying to default getting in line being told by washington, d.c. what to do embrace where we are. this is why i'm totally convinc convinced we can grow at 4%. we'll be america renewed again. [applause] [applause] i feel like i'm at the pulpit. like a tent revival meeting. >> the last question is on the last point you made. right now the economy is growing at 2%. you say can grow 4%. why do you think that can be
done? >> because it has in the past. the path can be prolonged if you have to have the right policy. if you impose these rules on every aspect of business you are not going to go. if you have the most complex tax code in the world. the me give an example. we have a new phenomena called inversion and this is a reality because of our tax code. a small foreign business buys a large u.s. business to consolidate their activities in that other country because their corporate tax rates are lower. we have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. the effect is we lose jobs the government loses revenue and we lose income. these offices have a diminished partner if you will and the people that depend on these large businesses and the community they lose part of their economic vitality. in my tax proposal i've said
it's because we have worldwide income as our driver. where is the cfo? nod your head if i am correct. our companies are taxed on worldwide income. there are $2 trillion of cash overseas that doesn't come back because it will be taxed at an onerous rate. what i propose is a .75% rate for that money to come back, $2 trillion to come back and move back to a territorial source of taxation which every other country has. he did that he would have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in enterprises across this country creating higher wage jobs. if you fully capitalize dustman the first year you were going to have an explosion of productivity and we are rebalancing from wall street to main street in effect. we are creating leveling of the playing field so that the
heartland of our country and the industrial side of our economy will begin to grow and fosburgh. everybody else does better when that happens so fixing our tax code, fixing the regulatory system embracing the -- fixing a broken immigration system that ran as a drain on our economy that could be it cute -- catalyst for huge economic growth. we have protected our border and made it clear that coming here legally is easier than coming here illegally and pick who we want to have this new americans. you would grow the economy at a far faster rate. in dealing with the structural deficit problem that relates to our entitlement challenges we have to preserve and protect our entitlements for those that have them but we need to make sure that we reform the whole system so the next generation can receive it. you will grow at 4% as far as the eye can see and we will lead the world. we will be as we are, we will
lead the world and i will close with this. simple exercise because i know people are deeply pessimistic about the future the country and they listen to politicians talk about how bad things are. you need therapy probably at therapy probably offended some of these debates. we opened up the entire world and said you have 30 days one-way ticket you can pick where you want to live, i wonder who would win that. we would win it. we would when it's 1000 to one. we would win it because this country is still the beacon of freedom. this is the hope for the world. this is the greatest country on the face of the earth and if we start acting like it we will be it. it's that simple. that's what i believe. [applause] so thank you all very much. we love you very much. [applause] ♪
from now at 9:30. excuse me at 10:00 eastern this morning. if approved the measure heads to the house for possible consideration today. now to live coverage of the senate here on c-span2.e: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord, through all the generations, you have been our refuge. we live our lives sheltered by your love. enable our senators to find hope in the knowledge that you are indeed in such control of our world that no weapon formed against us will prosper.
deliver our lawmakers from judgmental attitudes that prompt them to think about others in any way contrary to your love. lord, transform us all by the power of your grace. we praise you and give you thanks because nothing can separate us from your love. we pray in your compassionate name. amen. the president pro tempore: pleae join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, yesterday representative ed whitfield announced that he'll retire at the end of this term. ed has served kentuckys first district for more than 20 years. he'll be missed here in the capitol when he retires. it's clear that his leadership will be missed back in kentucky, too.
our troops at fort campbell will miss him. workers at the paducah plant will miss him. kentucky's countless coal families, hardworkin hardworking kentuckians he never failed to stand up for, will certainly miss him as well. ed was rightly considered a kentucky trailblazer when he first -- he became the first republican elected to representative that district back in 1994. our republican party had never held it going back to the civil war. it was an enormous breakthrough. ed has worked hard to deliver for the commonwealth in the two decades since. he will leave behind a record of service and of accomplishment. the senate will complete its work on the continuing resolution today. we remember watching our democratic colleagues swerve from crisis to crisis when they ran the senate.
perhaps this is just all democrats have known. but i.t. not righbut it's not ro again force america into another short-term funding situation like this. we're working to change the culture around here. our determination remains to get the senate back to normal with a functional appropriations process. that's why for the first time in six years the senate actually passed a budget. that's why for the first time in six years the senate actually passed through committee a dozen appropriations bills necessary to properly fund the government. now that the c.r. appears to be on track, we can turn back to the last step in the senate's normal appropriations process, and that is getting the funding bills passed here on the floor. democrats have blocked them all this year as part of some arbitrary strategy to force our nation to the brink. they certainly succeeded in
doing that, but i think the american people are ready for our colleagues to finally get serious and get back to work. americans are ready to see democrats stop supporting, not blocking, the very bipartisan funding legislation democrats previously voted for and bragged dibragabout in press -- and brad about in press releases. our colleagues will have that opportunity this week when we turn back to the regular appropriations process. moving forward will require democrats to turn the page on bad habits and dysfunction. but i.t. th it's the right thino for our country. we'll see if they're ready to do so later this week. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic. -- the democratic leader. mr. reid: my friend, the republican leader, is reciting factfacts that are not real.
everyone knows what's happened in this body and the house of representatives the last few years. gridlock. our republicans in the house can -- can't agree with republican in the senate, and it appears republicans in the senate can't agree among themselves. so for my friend to talk about how great things are going is not reality. we need to start working together, not apart. and working with republicans, we find it's very difficult to develop any kind of partnerships, as we've always done in the past until the republican leaders took over the congress. so, mr. president, i would hope that my friends, the republicans, would understand, we've got to start doing things to help the country. we're in the situation we're in -- it's october 30. the country is out of money in
just a few hours. why do we wait until the last minute and then we only provide enough money to get us to the first part of december. we have received word that the house speaker is going to resign. why? he's resigning because everyone knows he can't deal with these people he has to deal with in the house. he's tried very hard, and it hasn't worked. so i would hope my friend, the republican leader, would start talking reality, not coming here and boasting about how great the country is doing under republican leadership. we've gotten nothing done, mr. president, nothing done under the leadership. and i'm reminded what albert an- albert einstein said when h he
defined "insanity" as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. the latest episode is what a waste of our time -- we had a vote here to defund planned parenthood. it didn't even get a majority of the republicans. well, it got a majority of the republicans. certainly didn't get a majority of the senate. it didn't get a majority of the senate and seniorly is didn't get 60 votes, which they were traig to do. revoting on things, always knowing the result is going to be the same. so it appears that albert einstein had a few organizations in mind when he gave this definition of "insanity," and one of them, as he looked forward, would be this republican senate that we have. mr. president, in the original hall of representatives, which is now national statut statuary,
is a clock. history will bear witness to all we do here in congress. for the last almost three decades, james bellington has served as the librarian of congress. he's ensured that the annals of american history are complete and available to everyone. he came t the library of congres in 1970. a valedictorian at princeton university, rhodes scholar. following his graduation from oxford, he enlisted in the united states army. after that he taught history, first at harvard and then princeton for 16 years. during that time, dr. bellington became one of the foremost scholars of russia.
i had the good fortune of being able to travel to the soviet union with dr. billington. it was like having an encyclopedia with you. it was wonderful to travel to this country that we've been involved in the cold war for so many years, have a scholar with us to give us an insight on everyplace we went, everyone we talked to. he's written a number of books on russian culture and politics. in 1973 he game to washington, d.c., to lead the woodrow wilson international center for scholars, a prestigious organization. as director he founded the keenan institute. served there for 14 years before coming over here to become the librarian of congress. he's done extraordinary work during his tenure at the library of congress. he's brought the library into the 21st century. he doubled the size of the
library's analogue collections. he oversaw the creation of the library of congress online making books cable to the american public. he founded the open world leadership forum. this important forum creates cultural exchanges between the united states and russian leaders. he has accompanied 10 congressional delegations to russia. i was forenational to be in one of -- i was for fortunate to ben one of them, as i just said. he accompanied mrs. reagan to a soviet conference in moscow. president reagan and his staff depended on james billington's outstanding mind. he helped establish the congressionally mandated veterans project which collects and preserves first-person accounts of the united states
veterans dating back to world war i. dr. billington helped create the national book festival which brings thousands of authors and readers to the national mall every year. so in every way imaginable, he has made the library of congress and by extension the united states a better library, a better country. now as he embarks on retirement after 28 years of exemplary service, i wish him the very best. i have no doubt dr. billington will enjoy time with his wife marnmarjorie, a lovely woman. they have 12 children and four grand chin. so, james billington, thank you for a job well done. we will all miss you. i would ask unanimous consent that my statement regarding dr. billington be ste separatedm the statements i made about the republican confusion, and i am going to talk a little bit about
-- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: pardon me? okay. thank you very much, mr. president. i've never seen -- i've tried to be one. i can't think of a time when keeping the government open and funded wang a last-minute exercise. looking at the clock now, we are almost 14 hours away from what could have been another republican government shutdown. a likely shutdown tonight they brought us dangerous dlois a shutdown. this continuing resolution funds ash government through december 11. that means we need to negotiate with the republicans to keep our government open in the coming weeks. yesterday senate mcconnell finally took up democrats on our call to begin budget negotiations. i welcome that. i welcomed senator mcconnell to the table.
we should have started this process months ago. better late than never. so i'm glad that he's come around. lifting the sequester has been one of my top priorities for years. i hope we can final li a chief this key -- i hope we can finally achieve this key democratic goal. just take what we've done in the past. just take the national institutes of health, lost almost $2 billion, and they've never gotten it back, never gotten it back. it's been devastating to the most prestigious, important, medical research facility in the world. that's what sequestration did. this time around we have no -- we have to do better than just keeping the federal government operating by a continuing resolution. we have to stop devastating sequester cuts from hitting our military and our middle class. evening the republican leader agrees, it appears, because a week or 10 days ago he said -- quote -- "we are inevitably going to end up in negotiations
that will crack the budget control act once again." close quote. i say hallelujah. here we're ready to negotiate. that was the original intent of sequestration, to force republicans and democrats to the negotiating table. that should be easy to do. we hate sequestration, and i know there are a significant number of republicans that don't like it. i heard senator graham, i heard senator mccain give speeches publicly in their committee about how terrible it is. let's get rid of it for the good of the country. this is a so-called no-brainer. so let's work together not in december to repeal the sequester caps. let's work now to build a long-term bipartisan funding bill and we can turn our attention to other matters that deserve our immediate attention like the debt ceiling. we can't put off the debt ceiling much longer, mr. president. i don't know the exact date we're going to run out of money, but i'm sure it's going to be
sometime before thanksgiving. we all know in a matter of weeks, unless we act, the united states will lose its ability to pay its bills. and if you think shutting the government down is bad -- which i do -- that pales in comparison to the government of the united states defaulting all our debts. the consequences would be dire and the fallout would be felt around the world. we also need to reauthorize the export-import bank. it's closed. republicans made a terrible mistake by allowing the bank post charter to expire jeopardizing hundreds of thousands of american jobs. congress must craft a long-term highway bill that ensures the highway trust fund can be solvent for years to come. we have a lot to do in the coming weeks and months and we certainly don't have time for any more manufactured crisis. so i sincerely hope the republican leadership will instead choose to do what's right and work with us to meet our country's obligations. would the chair tell us what
we're going to do the rest of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 719, which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 719, an act to require the transportation security administration to conform to existing federal law, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their designees. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'd like to speak to the vote that we're going to cast this morning at 10:00. this is a vote to basically extend the authority and budget of the federal government until december 11. this september 30 is the end of our fiscal year, and at least legally the authority to continue the government depends on budget and appropriations bills being passed by the house
and senate. that has not happened. so what we're doing is a continuing resolution. it basically extends last year's budget until december 11. now that will keep the lights on at federal agencies and it will avoid the catastrophic outcome of a government shutdown, but it is not good policy. we've done it on our side, on the democratic side, now the republicans in control of the congress are doing it on their side. it buys time to try to reach some sort of an agreement that is longer lasting and more thoughtful. we know now that the notion of a government shutdown is a disaster, but it is not a unanimous opinion in the united states senate or in the house of representatives. there are actually members of the senate and the house who are applauding the possibility of a government shutdown. some of them were the same people that inspired the shutdown several years ago, a shutdown which cost us 800,000 jobs in america because of the uncertainty created by it and
created real hardship for people around our country. a shutdown, if it happened again in this context, would be even more serious in terms of its impact on the american economy. and so, we have our chance, and i would just say to those who follow this debate -- and there's no reason why people would follow the minutia -- in june of this year we asked on the democratic side for the republican leader to sit down and avoid this actual confrontation we have today. we asked senator mcconnell and speaker boehner to negotiate with the president a new budget, a budget that's realistic and will not harm innocent people. i am troubled by the notion that the republicans have that we should find war funds to continue funding the department of defense and ignore the non-defense parts of the budget. senator reid made reference to one. the national institutes of health medical research,
critical to america and its future, is now facing the uncertainty of no budget. and that is unfair. last night we had a meeting with some of the major medical researchers in the united states and they said it's hard to convince the next generation of researchers that we as a nation are seriously committed. it's a political problem, one that should be solved by politicians, mainly members of the house and senate working with the president. so we will likely vote -- and i certainly will vote -- in the next few minutes to extend the operations of the government until december 11. but if it's only for more speechifying and breast l beating by those who want to shut down the government to prove some political point, i have to tell you they're seriously is mistaken. it's the wrong thing for our future when it comes to medical
research, education and critical programs to shut down the government. those who are preaching that gospel should be reminded that three out of four americans think they're not very thoughtful. i'll clean up my words a little bit. not very thoughtful in using this approach. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this continuing resolution but really light a fire under the leadership in the democrat and republican precincts to come together in the house and senate in the closing, or in the next few weeks, i should say, of this continuing resolution. let's make sure we have a budget and one that is befitting a great nation. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment 2690. i'm sorry. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment 2690. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment
is withdrawn. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question occurs on the motion to concur with amendment number 2689 in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 719. the yeas and nays have previously been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: